Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund

[G-Unit]

The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.

The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;

The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf

Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.

[kizzy]

Where should the money have gone then?  Into the McCanns personal bank accounts?  I personally ;would have no objection to this.

Well i bet there are hundreds that would have objections 

people gave the money not to go in there bank accounts - or pay there mortgage or legal fees.

what would the mccanns have done without that fund - imo they were broke when maddie went missing.

The fund was their lifeline - not maddies

[John]

what ship is taht...The SC made no comment on the innocence or guilt of the mcCanns...I think you are mistaken...there is no real evidence against the mccanns ...accrding to the archiving report...according to teh pj

im a little surprised...do some posters think teh SC judhement in someway questions the innocence of the mcCAnns

A reminder...

http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-rounds-on-supreme-court-‘shock’-that-mccanns-“have-not-been-proved-innocent”

[Venturi Swirl]

Well i bet there are hundreds that would have objections 

people gave the money not to go in there bank accounts - or pay there mortgage or legal fees.

what would the mccanns have done without that fund - imo they were broke when maddie went missing.

The fund was their lifeline - not maddies

I was responding to John's comment that he felt that the money from out of court libel settlements should not have gone into the Fund.  Perhaps it would have been better if the McCanns had pocketed the money directly and paid for all their legal fees out of it.  Why would anyone object to that?

[Venturi Swirl]

The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.

The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;

The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf

Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.

Who has complained about the Fund in writing and on what basis?

[Miss Taken Identity]

The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.

The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;

The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf

Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.

Very good Post G. I agree entirely.

When people were donating the money, them blasted pensioners and children who the supporters  don't seem to think they matter any more according to the posts about the fund is anything to go by, were giving money as they were concerned, and wanted to help find Maddie and support the family in some way- ON THE BAISIS they were told that Madeleine was abducted from her bed.

 At that same time- I personally had no objections to them using the fund money to make a mortgage payment  after their salaries were affected, and buying the twins toys or taking them away for the day etc. However, when the story actually unfolded. I changed my view all together.

The Money's as John said should have been separated because it was agreed by the then board of directors NOT to pay for legal fees from the fund but they just went ahead and started a civil case. To get more money! Now we have a situation where they must pay out from said fund after losing the court case.

[Mr Gray]

A reminder...

http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-rounds-on-supreme-court-‘shock’-that-mccanns-“have-not-been-proved-innocent”

That really is, a meaningless statement.....since when is anyone proven innocent even when a trial has, taken place..
That does not imply any sort of guilt and you, are mistaken if you think that's, what the SC have done

[kizzy]

Clarence Mitchell Lies on NZ Radio

I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.

This statement is quite clear. “No money will be spent on lawyer’s fees or anything like that.”





Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure”

As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.

At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/

[kizzy]

I was responding to John's comment that he felt that the money from out of court libel settlements should not have gone into the Fund.  Perhaps it would have been better if the McCanns had pocketed the money directly and paid for all their legal fees out of it.  Why would anyone object to that?

Because the money was to search for maddie - not pay the mccanns legal fees.

[Angelo222]

That really is, a meaningless statement.....since when is anyone proven innocent even when a trial has, taken place..
That does not imply any sort of guilt and you, are mistaken if you think that's, what the SC have done

The SC were unequivocal imo in what it stated.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Clarence Mitchell Lies on NZ Radio

I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.

This statement is quite clear. “No money will be spent on lawyer’s fees or anything like that.”





Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure”

As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.

At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/

So if they had private benefactors doing all that- why hide the funds accounts?

[G-Unit]

Who has complained about the Fund in writing and on what basis?

All the information is here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/58feb12/MCCANNFILES_20_02_2012.htm

The only response from anyone connected to the Fund was from Clarence Mitchell;

I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:

"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."

I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.

Kind regards,

Clarence

[Brietta]

Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?

What is it people are objecting to?

The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.

Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so?  As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine.  Is that what these objectors wanted?

[Venturi Swirl]

Because the money was to search for maddie - not pay the mccanns legal fees.

What  the money from libel settlements?  Who said?  If the McCanns chose to put it in the Fund that was up to them - there was no obligation to anyone (apart from Madeleine) to do so - certainly it's none of your business what they did with their libel settlements.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?

What is it people are objecting to?

The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.

Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so?  As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine. Is that what these objectors wanted?

I don't believe that argument can hold? We have been told benefactors were giving them financial assistance and other help.  How much has been spent of searching for this 'abducted child'  ?

A whole community of volunteers, Private investigators, police force, now two police forces.. Care to put a price on all this?

The parents were never left to search by themselves at all. They never gave up their jobs to find Madeleine, in fact they made no sacrifices what so ever. Did the visiting family 'look' 'search' for MBM?